What is the point of this 'debate'? It's not a debate, it's a rehash of the same nonsense MPs have said many times, with everyone in Transmit Only mode.
With a No Deal we can then start negotiating a Trade Deal in parallel with a Withdrawal Agreement. That also allows us an extra bargaining chip of EU payments to get a good trade deal.
This really is the weirdest of all the weird suggestions floating around, given that the vast bulk of the economic damage from No Deal will arise from the immediate chaos of crashing out with no transition.
I think that the word you are looking for may be imbecilic.
I was trying to be (relatively) polite!
I think I have done being polite. The morons in the ERG are a public menace. How they can think that we will have any kind of working relationship with the EU after spending 2 years agreeing what our liabilities are and then refusing to pay them, agreeing the framework of a trade deal and then telling them we want to start again and how it somehow doesn't matter that their government (on paper at least) doesn't have even the beginnings of a statutory framework or preparatory work done for no deal but we should somehow barge ahead anyway.
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
Not convinced if that. She made two fatal errors which have put her in the position she is in - not going for a trade deal and not making the £ 39bn continent on it coming into effect. With a trade deal the backstop wouldn’t be necessary.
She wanted a special relationship with the EU that the EU weren’t interested in and made too many concessions too quickly.
Could have been a bit more hardball on the moolah, perhaps, but the EU were adamant about the sequencing - leave first then we talk trade, cannot negotiate a trade deal while you are still a member of the club. I did not get the impression that was anything but a statement of fact.
Then they should have given them the bird and started planning
With a No Deal we can then start negotiating a Trade Deal in parallel with a Withdrawal Agreement. That also allows us an extra bargaining chip of EU payments to get a good trade deal.
This really is the weirdest of all the weird suggestions floating around, given that the vast bulk of the economic damage from No Deal will arise from the immediate chaos of crashing out with no transition.
I think that the word you are looking for may be imbecilic.
I was trying to be (relatively) polite!
I think I have done being polite. The morons in the ERG are a public menace. How they can think that we will have any kind of working relationship with the EU after spending 2 years agreeing what our liabilities are and then refusing to pay them, agreeing the framework of a trade deal and then telling them we want to start again and how it somehow doesn't matter that their government (on paper at least) doesn't have even the beginnings of a statutory framework or preparatory work done for no deal but we should somehow barge ahead anyway.
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
What is the point of this 'debate'? It's not a debate, it's a rehash of the same nonsense MPs have said many times, with everyone in Transmit Only mode.
With a No Deal we can then start negotiating a Trade Deal in parallel with a Withdrawal Agreement. That also allows us an extra bargaining chip of EU payments to get a good trade deal.
This really is the weirdest of all the weird suggestions floating around, given that the vast bulk of the economic damage from No Deal will arise from the immediate chaos of crashing out with no transition.
I think that the word you are looking for may be imbecilic.
I was trying to be (relatively) polite!
I think I have done being polite. The morons in the ERG are a public menace. How they can think that we will have any kind of working relationship with the EU after spending 2 years agreeing what our liabilities are and then refusing to pay them, agreeing the framework of a trade deal and then telling them we want to start again and how it somehow doesn't matter that their government (on paper at least) doesn't have even the beginnings of a statutory framework or preparatory work done for no deal but we should somehow barge ahead anyway.
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
Why is this so obvious to you, I, a lot of people who post here, but not them?
I don't think there's a wave of enthusiasm for the Deal. More that there a lot of people who think it's okay, not bad, can live with it, and feel some sympathy for the PM.
Serious question:
What percentage of the public do you think have a good understanding of the Withdrawal Treaty, the Political Declaration, the legal status of each, and how the one relates to the other?
(a) More than 50% (b) Between 10% and 50% (c) Less than 10%
You can pretty much list them out
Theresa May, Geoffrey Cox, one or both of Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins & some senior members of his team, lawyers who deal with the EU and have too much time on their hands.
But leavers told us we hold all the cards. Easiest trade deal in history. And EU industry would insist on giving us everything we wanted so they could continue us to sell us prosecco and BMWs.
They did, that is true. And with the exception of John Redwood they said it in firm authoritative voices whilst maintaining a suitably sober expression. It was not at all clear that they were joking, and one cannot blame the public for assuming that they weren't.
With a No Deal we can then start negotiating a Trade Deal in parallel with a Withdrawal Agreement. That also allows us an extra bargaining chip of EU payments to get a good trade deal.
This really is the weirdest of all the weird suggestions floating around, given that the vast bulk of the economic damage from No Deal will arise from the immediate chaos of crashing out with no transition.
I think that the word you are looking for may be imbecilic.
I was trying to be (relatively) polite!
I think I have done being polite. The morons in the ERG are a public menace. How they can think that we will have any kind of working relationship with the EU after spending 2 years agreeing what our liabilities are and then refusing to pay them, agreeing the framework of a trade deal and then telling them we want to start again and how it somehow doesn't matter that their government (on paper at least) doesn't have even the beginnings of a statutory framework or preparatory work done for no deal but we should somehow barge ahead anyway.
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
Why is this so obvious to you, I, a lot of people who post here, but not them?
I really don't know Sean. I can only think that they have spent decades in hermetically sealed echo chambers where every problem is wished away by wanting it hard enough and that it has rotted their brains.
I don't think there's a wave of enthusiasm for the Deal. More that there a lot of people who think it's okay, not bad, can live with it, and feel some sympathy for the PM.
Serious question:
What percentage of the public do you think have a good understanding of the Withdrawal Treaty, the Political Declaration, the legal status of each, and how the one relates to the other?
(a) More than 50% (b) Between 10% and 50% (c) Less than 10%
You can pretty much list them out
Theresa May, Geoffrey Cox, one or both of Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins & some senior members of his team, lawyers who deal with the EU and have too much time on their hands.
With a No Deal we can then start negotiating a Trade Deal in parallel with a Withdrawal Agreement. That also allows us an extra bargaining chip of EU payments to get a good trade deal.
This really is the weirdest of all the weird suggestions floating around, given that the vast bulk of the economic damage from No Deal will arise from the immediate chaos of crashing out with no transition.
I think that the word you are looking for may be imbecilic.
I was trying to be (relatively) polite!
I think I have done being polite. The morons in the ERG are a public menace. How they can think that we will have any kind of working relationship with the EU after spending 2 years agreeing what our liabilities are and then refusing to pay them, agreeing the framework of a trade deal and then telling them we want to start again and how it somehow doesn't matter that their government (on paper at least) doesn't have even the beginnings of a statutory framework or preparatory work done for no deal but we should somehow barge ahead anyway.
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
Why is this so obvious to you, I, a lot of people who post here, but not them?
His last word was the clue. Idiots. Morons. Ideologues with the IQ of a cheese plant.
I don't think there's a wave of enthusiasm for the Deal. More that there a lot of people who think it's okay, not bad, can live with it, and feel some sympathy for the PM.
Serious question:
What percentage of the public do you think have a good understanding of the Withdrawal Treaty, the Political Declaration, the legal status of each, and how the one relates to the other?
(a) More than 50% (b) Between 10% and 50% (c) Less than 10%
You can pretty much list them out
Theresa May, Geoffrey Cox, one or both of Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins & some senior members of his team, lawyers who deal with the EU and have too much time on their hands.
Almost everyone else is bluffing to some degree.
You forgot the one that went mad, and the other that has forgotten...
I don't think there's a wave of enthusiasm for the Deal. More that there a lot of people who think it's okay, not bad, can live with it, and feel some sympathy for the PM.
Serious question:
What percentage of the public do you think have a good understanding of the Withdrawal Treaty, the Political Declaration, the legal status of each, and how the one relates to the other?
(a) More than 50% (b) Between 10% and 50% (c) Less than 10%
You can pretty much list them out
Theresa May, Geoffrey Cox, one or both of Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins & some senior members of his team, lawyers who deal with the EU and have too much time on their hands.
Almost everyone else is bluffing to some degree.
Time for May to go and be replaced by Geoffrey Cox. He understands it, isn't going to be bullshitted, the EU know he won't be bullshitted and the voters will trust him not to bullshit them.
I don't think there's a wave of enthusiasm for the Deal. More that there a lot of people who think it's okay, not bad, can live with it, and feel some sympathy for the PM.
Serious question:
What percentage of the public do you think have a good understanding of the Withdrawal Treaty, the Political Declaration, the legal status of each, and how the one relates to the other?
(a) More than 50% (b) Between 10% and 50% (c) Less than 10%
You can pretty much list them out
Theresa May, Geoffrey Cox, one or both of Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins & some senior members of his team, lawyers who deal with the EU and have too much time on their hands.
Almost everyone else is bluffing to some degree.
Time for May to go and be replaced by Geoffrey Cox. He understands it, isn't going to be bullshitted, the EU know he won't be bullshitted and the voters will trust him not to bullshit them.
Not convinced if that. She made two fatal errors which have put her in the position she is in - not going for a trade deal and not making the £ 39bn continent on it coming into effect. With a trade deal the backstop wouldn’t be necessary.
She wanted a special relationship with the EU that the EU weren’t interested in and made too many concessions too quickly.
Could have been a bit more hardball on the moolah, perhaps, but the EU were adamant about the sequencing - leave first then we talk trade, cannot negotiate a trade deal while you are still a member of the club. I did not get the impression that was anything but a statement of fact.
Doesn’t take much to negotiate them both simultaneously and simply sign one and then the other in the EU’s desired sequencing with the effectiveness of the first conditional on signing the second.
It’s fine for the EU to be play hardball. It’s a pity we didn’t do the same. As I said, May conceded too much too soon for no quid pro quo of any value.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
Interesting that other surveys that ask ho whtye think MPs should vote are much more favourable. I guess people are individually happier to risk the good for the better (or the bad for the good), but not when the vote is actually happening.
Interesting that other surveys that ask ho whtye think MPs should vote are much more favourable. I guess people are individually happier to risk the good for the better (or the bad for the good), but not when the vote is actually happening.
The questions on how people view the different outcomes as good or bad are interesting too. There's much more opposition to both the deal and no deal than there is to no Brexit.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
May uses the Civil Contingencies Act - on the pretext of securing food supplies.
What percentage of the public do you think have a good understanding of the Withdrawal Treaty, the Political Declaration, the legal status of each, and how the one relates to the other?
(a) More than 50% (b) Between 10% and 50% (c) Less than 10%
Thanks a lot for the various answers to my question above.
Not various answers, strictly speaking, since (c) is unanimous. Which, for the record, is my very confident answer too.
I have many objections to another EU referendum but this is my biggest one. Of course the % would go up a little given a referendum campaign but I don't think it would reach the heights of (b) let alone (a).
This is why, colours to the mast, I actually prefer all other outcomes to another referendum, including No Deal.
Not convinced if that. She made two fatal errors which have put her in the position she is in - not going for a trade deal and not making the £ 39bn continent on it coming into effect. With a trade deal the backstop wouldn’t be necessary.
She wanted a special relationship with the EU that the EU weren’t interested in and made too many concessions too quickly.
Could have been a bit more hardball on the moolah, perhaps, but the EU were adamant about the sequencing - leave first then we talk trade, cannot negotiate a trade deal while you are still a member of the club. I did not get the impression that was anything but a statement of fact.
Doesn’t take much to negotiate them both simultaneously and simply sign one and then the other in the EU’s desired sequencing with the effectiveness of the first conditional on signing the second.
It’s fine for the EU to be play hardball. It’s a pity we didn’t do the same. As I said, May conceded too much too soon for no quid pro quo of any value.
Well, both Survation and BMG have suggested substantially greater levels of support.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
Surely they don't need to be passed? We leave on the 29th unless a conscious decision is taken by Parliament to revoke. These other things just need to be passed to ameliorate or avoid catastrophic consequences.
I'm not totally convinced this is at the top of the ERG's agenda right now. As you noted above, they seem to have lost what few marbles they ever had. They sound almost as deranged as Lord Adonis.
You might get a majority in favour of this in a People's Vote.
I think you'd get a majority in favour of suspending every last one of our MPs in a vote, up until the moment you explained that 'suspended' didn't mean 'hanged on the nearest lamp post.'
Yet another reason why referendums are a reckless idea.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
Surely they don't need to be passed? We leave on the 29th unless a conscious decision is taken by Parliament to revoke. These other things just need to be passed to ameliorate or avoid catastrophic consequences.
I'm not totally convinced this is at the top of the ERG's agenda right now. As you noted above, they seem to have lost what few marbles they ever had. They sound almost as deranged as Lord Adonis.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
Surely they don't need to be passed? We leave on the 29th unless a conscious decision is taken by Parliament to revoke. These other things just need to be passed to ameliorate or avoid catastrophic consequences.
I'm not totally convinced this is at the top of the ERG's agenda right now. As you noted above, they seem to have lost what few marbles they ever had. They sound almost as deranged as Lord Adonis.
Wow, and I thought I was being harsh.
Could have been worse. At least I said Adonis not Williamson.
Well, both Survation and BMG have suggested substantially greater levels of support.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
Deal: Good - 12%, Acceptable - 23%, Bad - 43%
No deal: Good - 17%, Acceptable - 15%, Bad - 52%
Stay in single market/customs union: Good - 24%, Acceptable - 24%, Bad - 27%
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
May uses the Civil Contingencies Act - on the pretext of securing food supplies.
Simples.
Actually s21 of the Civil Contingencies Act provides: 21Conditions for making emergency regulations (1)This section specifies the conditions mentioned in section 20. (2)The first condition is that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. (3)The second condition is that it is necessary to make provision for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency. (4)The third condition is that the need for provision referred to in subsection (3) is urgent. (5)For the purpose of subsection (3) provision which is the same as an enactment (“the existing legislation”) is necessary if, in particular— (a)the existing legislation cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay, (b)it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the existing legislation can be relied upon, or (c)the existing legislation might be insufficiently effective. (6)For the purpose of subsection (3) provision which could be made under an enactment other than section 20 (“the existing legislation”) is necessary if, in particular— (a)the provision cannot be made under the existing legislation without the risk of serious delay, (b)it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the provision can be made under the existing legislation, or (c)the provision might be insufficiently effective if made under the existing legislation.
I think it is arguable that all of these conditions would be met.
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach then the current “fair access” silliness.
What is the point of this 'debate'? It's not a debate, it's a rehash of the same nonsense MPs have said many times, with everyone in Transmit Only mode.
Well, both Survation and BMG have suggested substantially greater levels of support.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
That's not true. The No Brexit option has a plurality in favour of it.
Deal: Good - 12%, Acceptable - 23%, Bad - 43%
No deal: Good - 17%, Acceptable - 15%, Bad - 52%
No Brexit: Good - 24%, Acceptable - 24%, Bad - 27%
No Brexit is 36% Good, 41% Bad. If you add acceptable to it, then you get to 45%, but that's not much greater than the number accepting Deal.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
We only need to pass that if we don’t want the population to experience severe disruption that could affect a small minority very badly indeed. Only weak-willed traitors like us care about such things.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
Surely they don't need to be passed? We leave on the 29th unless a conscious decision is taken by Parliament to revoke. These other things just need to be passed to ameliorate or avoid catastrophic consequences.
I'm not totally convinced this is at the top of the ERG's agenda right now. As you noted above, they seem to have lost what few marbles they ever had. They sound almost as deranged as Lord Adonis.
Wow, and I thought I was being harsh.
Could have been worse. At least I said Adonis not Williamson.
How the hell are we in this mess? Why were all these Acts not passed months ago simply waiting on SIs to bring them into force when and if required? The incompetence of this government is simply mind blowing.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
We only need to pass that if we don’t want the population to experience severe disruption that could affect a small minority very badly indeed. Only weak-willed traitors like us care about such things.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought we still wanted to have an economy afterwards.
Well, both Survation and BMG have suggested substantially greater levels of support.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
That's not true. The No Brexit option has a plurality in favour of it.
Deal: Good - 12%, Acceptable - 23%, Bad - 43%
No deal: Good - 17%, Acceptable - 15%, Bad - 52%
No Brexit: Good - 24%, Acceptable - 24%, Bad - 27%
Hardly a ringing endorsement! And you ignore this question:
Imagine that the final outcome of Brexit was Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all. Would you consider this to be:
A very good outcome 28% A fairly good outcome 8% An acceptable compromise 9% A fairly bad outcome 7% A very bad outcome 34%
Total good outcome: 36%, Total bad outcome: 41%
Interesting also that it is so polarised, usually you expect the middle options to be the ones people go for,
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Well, both Survation and BMG have suggested substantially greater levels of support.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
That's not true. The No Brexit option has a plurality in favour of it.
Deal: Good - 12%, Acceptable - 23%, Bad - 43%
No deal: Good - 17%, Acceptable - 15%, Bad - 52%
No Brexit: Good - 24%, Acceptable - 24%, Bad - 27%
No Brexit is 36% Good, 41% Bad. If you add acceptable to it, then you get to 45%, but that's not much greater than the number accepting Deal.
That's no Brexit via a second referendum. I've edited my post as I misread the stay in single market/customs union option as no Brexit at all.
Well, both Survation and BMG have suggested substantially greater levels of support.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
That's not true. The No Brexit option has a plurality in favour of it.
Deal: Good - 12%, Acceptable - 23%, Bad - 43%
No deal: Good - 17%, Acceptable - 15%, Bad - 52%
No Brexit: Good - 24%, Acceptable - 24%, Bad - 27%
No Brexit is 36% Good, 41% Bad. If you add acceptable to it, then you get to 45%, but that's not much greater than the number accepting Deal.
That's no Brexit via a second referendum. I've edited my post as I misread the stay in single market/customs union option as no Brexit at all.
You also get 37% favouring No Deal or Deal v 36% favouring cancel Brexit or a second referendum.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
In academic circles GRSD is popular. Gender, Relationship and Sexual Diversity.
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach and the all the “fair access” silliness.
Unfortunately thanks to Mr Gove's reforms it will not be possible to bring forward A-level exams, as they are far too content heavy. It's 50/50 whether I will finish the course this year, and mine (AQA) is the lightest in terms of content. History, as a whole, is much lighter than say Maths or Physics. In fact, to complicate matters they could only be brought forward three weeks, which isn't enough time for what's proposed.
There are other issues as well. First of all, UCAS isn't especially user friendly and as one of the Heads of Faculty and a Year 13 tutor I spend half my life trying to help bewildered students navigate it. The finance system is even worse (remember, the SLC has a senior manager so dense he doesn't know July is the month before August). So cutting out school support is a recipe for chaos.
There are, however, alternatives. I agree, for a start, that knowing results in advance would be better. It would also ease the time pressure on remarks (I once had a student who lost a place at uni because the marker didn't know the Duke of Suffolk was murdered in 1450, and it took two months to disentangle what had happened). And there is no reason why universities could not start in January.
However, a more practicable approach would be to allow students to take up foundation years at designated universities or sixth form colleges after A-level (which most universities have at the start anyway) and switch at the end of them to a different university if they perform well - in effect cutting the Russell Group (where contrary to popular belief the teaching is often of a shockingly poor standard) out of the first stage of the admissions process. They could hthen be taken on their A-level results and at least one semester of university results.
And because the Russell Group will never allow such a sensible system, it will never happen.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
Playing with fire there son...you miss off any of that and somebody loses their shit and calls you transphobic etc.
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
We only need to pass that if we don’t want the population to experience severe disruption that could affect a small minority very badly indeed. Only weak-willed traitors like us care about such things.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought we still wanted to have an economy afterwards.
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach and the all the “fair access” silliness.
Unfortunately thanks to Mr Gove's reforms it will not be possible to bring forward A-level exams, as they are far too content heavy. It's 50/50 whether I will finish the course this year, and mine (AQA) is the lightest in terms of content. History, as a whole, is much lighter than say Maths or Physics. In fact, to complicate matters they could only be brought forward three weeks, which isn't enough time for what's proposed.
There are other issues as well. First of all, UCAS isn't especially user friendly and as one of the Heads of Faculty and a Year 13 tutor I spend half my life trying to help bewildered students navigate it. The finance system is even worse (remember, the SLC has a senior manager so dense he doesn't know July is the month before August). So cutting out school support is a recipe for chaos.
There are, however, alternatives. I agree, for a start, that knowing results in advance would be better. It would also ease the time pressure on remarks (I once had a student who lost a place at uni because the marker didn't know the Duke of Suffolk was murdered in 1450, and it took two months to disentangle what had happened). And there is no reason why universities could not start in January.
However, a more practicable approach would be to allow students to take up foundation years at designated universities or sixth form colleges after A-level (which most universities have at the start anyway) and switch at the end of them to a different university if they perform well - in effect cutting the Russell Group (where contrary to popular belief the teaching is often of a shockingly poor standard) out of the first stage of the admissions process. They could hthen be taken on their A-level results and at least one semester of university results.
And because the Russell Group will never allow such a sensible system, it will never happen.
Surprised on the time pressure to finish the curriculum. How many hours per fortnight are you timetabled?
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach and the all the “fair access” silliness.
Unfortunately thanks to Mr Gove's reforms it will not be possible to bring forward A-level exams, as they are far too content heavy. It's 50/50 whether I will finish the course this year, and mine (AQA) is the lightest in terms of content. History, as a whole, is much lighter than say Maths or Physics. In fact, to complicate matters they could only be brought forward three weeks, which isn't enough time for what's proposed.
There are other issues as well. First of all, UCAS isn't especially user friendly and as one of the Heads of Faculty and a Year 13 tutor I spend half my life trying to help bewildered students navigate it. The finance system is even worse (remember, the SLC has a senior manager so dense he doesn't know July is the month before August). So cutting out school support is a recipe for chaos.
There are, however, alternatives. I agree, for a start, that knowing results in advance would be better. It would also ease the time pressure on remarks (I once had a student who lost a place at uni because the marker didn't know the Duke of Suffolk was murdered in 1450, and it took two months to disentangle what had happened). And there is no reason why universities could not start in January.
However, a more practicable approach would be to allow students to take up foundation years at designated universities or sixth form colleges after A-level (which most universities have at the start anyway) and switch at the end of them to a different university if they perform well - in effect cutting the Russell Group (where contrary to popular belief the teaching is often of a shockingly poor standard) out of the first stage of the admissions process. They could hthen be taken on their A-level results and at least one semester of university results.
And because the Russell Group will never allow such a sensible system, it will never happen.
Surprised on the time pressure to finish the curriculum. How many hours per fortnight are you timetabled?
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If they turn it into a spaghetti system all that happens is people use pirate systems. There are already numerous apps that make Netflix catalogue look tiny and everybody now can get fast enough internet.
The reason Spotify is so popular is you basically get everything on one service.
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach then the current “fair access” silliness.
My medical school has had this policy for some years, for undergraduate Medical Degrees. It has had an effect as private schools often over egg their predictions and state schools under do them. The extra year of maturity helps too.
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach and the all the “fair access” silliness.
Unfortunately thanks to Mr Gove's reforms it will not be possible to bring forward A-level exams, as they are far too content heavy. It's 50/50 whether I will finish the course this year, and mine (AQA) is the lightest in terms of content. History, as a whole, is much lighter than say Maths or Physics. In fact, to complicate matters they could only be brought forward three weeks, which isn't enough time for what's proposed.
There are other issues as well. First of all, UCAS isn't especially user friendly and as one of the Heads of Faculty and a Year 13 tutor I spend half my life trying to help bewildered students navigate it. The finance system is even worse (remember, the SLC has a senior manager so dense he doesn't know July is the month before August). So cutting out school support is a recipe for chaos.
There are, however, alternatives. I agree, for a start, that knowing results in advance would be better. It would also ease the time pressure on remarks (I once had a student who lost a place at uni because the marker didn't know the Duke of Suffolk was murdered in 1450, and it took two months to disentangle what had happened). And there is no reason why universities could not start in January.
However, a more practicable approach would be to allow students to take up foundation years at designated universities or sixth form colleges after A-level (which most universities have at the start anyway) and switch at the end of them to a different university if they perform well - in effect cutting the Russell Group (where contrary to popular belief the teaching is often of a shockingly poor standard) out of the first stage of the admissions process. They could hthen be taken on their A-level results and at least one semester of university results.
And because the Russell Group will never allow such a sensible system, it will never happen.
Surprised on the time pressure to finish the curriculum. How many hours per fortnight are you timetabled?
And what part of 6 pieces of primary legislation and over 200 pieces of secondary legislation, much of it requiring affirmative approval, needing to be passed did he miss?
We only need to pass that if we don’t want the population to experience severe disruption that could affect a small minority very badly indeed. Only weak-willed traitors like us care about such things.
Sorry, my mistake. I thought we still wanted to have an economy afterwards.
If Parliament rejects the withdrawal agreement, why on earth would we pay the calculation of our liabilities given as part of that agreement? Perhaps PB's self-appointed arbiters of common sense can tell me this?
I think I have been advocating for this as long as I have been posting on PB...disadvantaged kids would be far better off under this approach then the current “fair access” silliness.
My medical school has had this policy for some years, for undergraduate Medical Degrees. It has had an effect as private schools often over egg their predictions and state schools under do them. The extra year of maturity helps too.
Even if they are over-egging / under doing it, given past performance I can imagine there is also plenty of conscious and subconscious bias of well that’s a good school they have had loads of kids come here with top grades vs we don’t get many / any from there, could be a bit risky if they will actually get that.
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
If Parliament rejects the withdrawal agreement, why on earth would we pay the calculation of our liabilities given as part of that agreement? Perhaps PB's self-appointed arbiters of common sense can tell me this?
The alternative would be years of litigation over the liabilities. .
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If she's doing Furher Maths as well I'm amazed she's still upright and breathing frankly.
One of the more bizarre features of the new qualifications is in the manic drive to 'add rigour' they seem to have rather lost sight of the fact that a course so rigorous that nobody can do it is of no value whatsoever. It would be better to have a less complicated course that more people could be encouraged to do so we widen the skills base, than a course that even the very ablest struggle with.
Already we've banned anyone who gets less than a 7 from doing Maths A-level, and strongly intimated that Further Maths GCSE will be needed to go beyond AS.
If they turn it into a spaghetti system all that happens is people use pirate systems. There are already numerous apps that make Netflix catalogue look tiny and everybody now can get fast enough internet.
The reason Spotify is so popular is you basically get everything on one service.
The Warner one is stupid - you can see how Disney could pull off such a deal for scheme focussing on Children and Amazon does it as TV is just an added part of Prime...
What is the point of this 'debate'? It's not a debate, it's a rehash of the same nonsense MPs have said many times, with everyone in Transmit Only mode.
If Parliament rejects the withdrawal agreement, why on earth would we pay the calculation of our liabilities given as part of that agreement? Perhaps PB's self-appointed arbiters of common sense can tell me this?
The alternative would be years of litigation over the liabilities. .
Which is surely to be amply preferred than spunking the whole lot away immediately with literally no benefit. Unless you subscribe to the Theresa May/David Cameron concept of negotiation.
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If she's doing Furher Maths as well I'm amazed she's still upright and breathing frankly.
One of the more bizarre features of the new qualifications is in the manic drive to 'add rigour' they seem to have rather lost sight of the fact that a course so rigorous that nobody can do it is of no value whatsoever. It would be better to have a less complicated course that more people could be encouraged to do so we widen the skills base, than a course that even the very ablest struggle with.
Already we've banned anyone who gets less than a 7 from doing Maths A-level, and strongly intimated that Further Maths GCSE will be needed to go beyond AS.
No just normal A level Maths. Further maths in her school has a grand total of 1 child still doing it and I can see the point of requiring a 7 from what I'm hearing a lot of children are struggling and GCSE maths had already sorted out a lot of the "chuff"...
If Parliament rejects the withdrawal agreement, why on earth would we pay the calculation of our liabilities given as part of that agreement? Perhaps PB's self-appointed arbiters of common sense can tell me this?
The alternative would be years of litigation over the liabilities. .
Which is surely to be amply preferred than spunking the whole lot away immediately with literally no benefit. Unless you subscribe to the Theresa May/David Cameron concept of negotiation.
If you regard economic continuity as being of "no benefit", you are either incompetent or mad.
If Parliament rejects the withdrawal agreement, why on earth would we pay the calculation of our liabilities given as part of that agreement? Perhaps PB's self-appointed arbiters of common sense can tell me this?
The alternative would be years of litigation over the liabilities. .
Which is surely to be amply preferred than spunking the whole lot away immediately with literally no benefit. Unless you subscribe to the Theresa May/David Cameron concept of negotiation.
If you regard economic continuity as being of "no benefit", you are either incompetent or mad.
If there isn't a deal, there is no economic continuity anyway. That is what your lot has been saying all along isn't it?
On initialisms, surely we need something in place of LGBTIQ+? It was not pronounceable back when it was only 4 letters, but much more than that and it is clunky to sound out each character.
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If she's doing Furher Maths as well I'm amazed she's still upright and breathing frankly.
One of the more bizarre features of the new qualifications is in the manic drive to 'add rigour' they seem to have rather lost sight of the fact that a course so rigorous that nobody can do it is of no value whatsoever. It would be better to have a less complicated course that more people could be encouraged to do so we widen the skills base, than a course that even the very ablest struggle with.
Already we've banned anyone who gets less than a 7 from doing Maths A-level, and strongly intimated that Further Maths GCSE will be needed to go beyond AS.
No just normal A level Maths. Further maths in her school has a grand total of 1 child still doing it and I can see the point of requiring a 7 from what I'm hearing a lot of children are struggling and GCSE maths had already sorted out a lot of the "chuff"...
I've had 40% of the cohort who started it drop history already this year. All very bright, all very keen, all very hardworking, all successful at GCSE despite the epic shambles over the mark scheme that saw the average mark for their combination dip to 27%. They just found it too hard.
I wouldn't mind it being hard - I've taught postgrads FFS - but it's not even a good preparation for a university degree.
Something is badly wrong.
Edit - and at a time we as a country badly need more mathematicians in every field, should we really be saying 1 candidate per school should be doing it? Really? Actually?
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Isn't there some sort of rule in the FTPA against UK and Scottish Elections falling on the same day?
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
I would always assume that unless the SNP prospects started to flag, they would keep a lid on internal tensions.
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If she's doing Furher Maths as well I'm amazed she's still upright and breathing frankly.
I thought that was "Fuhrer maths" there for a second, and I too was amazed.
I shouldn't be imagining what would be on the prospectus of fuhrer maths should I?
I am going to be very noble and not make a comment on Gove here.
Although somewhere I do have an example of a German algebra question that involved a plane 'bombing Warsaw, the capital of international Jewry.'
Edit - and I didn't even mention Corbyn's, ummm, mathematical mishaps with his 'fully costed manifesto'...
If 500,000 people attend a rally in Nuremburg, each with 5 books for the bonfire, how many millimetres should be shaved from the Fuhrer's upper lip to produce a perfectly square moustache?
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If she's doing Furher Maths as well I'm amazed she's still upright and breathing frankly.
I thought that was "Fuhrer maths" there for a second, and I too was amazed.
I shouldn't be imagining what would be on the prospectus of fuhrer maths should I?
I am going to be very noble and not make a comment on Gove here.
Although somewhere I do have an example of a German algebra question that involved a plane 'bombing Warsaw, the capital of international Jewry.'
Edit - and I didn't even mention Corbyn's, ummm, mathematical mishaps with his 'fully costed manifesto'...
If 500,000 people attend a rally in Nuremburg, each with 5 books for the bonfire, how many millimetres should be shaved from the Fuhrer's upper lip to produce a perfectly square moustache?
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
Surely a catfish fight?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
I'm not I've seen what my daughter (Year 12 / lower 6) has for Maths...
If she's doing Furher Maths as well I'm amazed she's still upright and breathing frankly.
I thought that was "Fuhrer maths" there for a second, and I too was amazed.
I shouldn't be imagining what would be on the prospectus of fuhrer maths should I?
I am going to be very noble and not make a comment on Gove here.
Although somewhere I do have an example of a German algebra question that involved a plane 'bombing Warsaw, the capital of international Jewry.'
Edit - and I didn't even mention Corbyn's, ummm, mathematical mishaps with his 'fully costed manifesto'...
If 500,000 people attend a rally in Nuremburg, each with 5 books for the bonfire, how many millimetres should be shaved from the Fuhrer's upper lip to produce a perfectly square moustache?
Comments
I mean, seriously, how do they think that is going to go for us or for our relations with the EU?Idiots.
Extremist ideologue !
Theresa May, Geoffrey Cox, one or both of Arlene Foster or Nigel Dodds, Dominic Grieve, Keir Starmer, Olly Robbins & some senior members of his team, lawyers who deal with the EU and have too much time on their hands.
Almost everyone else is bluffing to some degree.
Vote Of No Confidence
VNOC is a (quasi) initialism.
Glad we got that all sorted.
Maybe.
Support the deal: 23%
Oppose the deal: 49%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4ovmboa1iw/Internal_190108_Brexit_web.pdf
You gotta give her points for putting in their work.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1084865380844224512
It’s fine for the EU to be play hardball. It’s a pity we didn’t do the same. As I said, May conceded too much too soon for no quid pro quo of any value.
Simples.
Not various answers, strictly speaking, since (c) is unanimous. Which, for the record, is my very confident answer too.
I have many objections to another EU referendum but this is my biggest one. Of course the % would go up a little given a referendum campaign but I don't think it would reach the heights of (b) let alone (a).
This is why, colours to the mast, I actually prefer all other outcomes to another referendum, including No Deal.
However, if you look in detail at Yougov's numbers, all options, No Deal, Remain, Deal, Norway find majorities or pluralities against them., and overall, those surveyed favour going ahead with Brexit by 47% to 39%, and reject a second referendum by 49% to 36%.
As so often, the result you get depends on the question you ask.
I'm not totally convinced this is at the top of the ERG's agenda right now. As you noted above, they seem to have lost what few marbles they ever had. They sound almost as deranged as Lord Adonis.
Yet another reason why referendums are a reckless idea.
Would have taken nerves of steel!
Good - 12%, Acceptable - 23%, Bad - 43%
No deal:
Good - 17%, Acceptable - 15%, Bad - 52%
Stay in single market/customs union:
Good - 24%, Acceptable - 24%, Bad - 27%
21Conditions for making emergency regulations
(1)This section specifies the conditions mentioned in section 20.
(2)The first condition is that an emergency has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur.
(3)The second condition is that it is necessary to make provision for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency.
(4)The third condition is that the need for provision referred to in subsection (3) is urgent.
(5)For the purpose of subsection (3) provision which is the same as an enactment (“the existing legislation”) is necessary if, in particular—
(a)the existing legislation cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay,
(b)it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the existing legislation can be relied upon, or
(c)the existing legislation might be insufficiently effective.
(6)For the purpose of subsection (3) provision which could be made under an enactment other than section 20 (“the existing legislation”) is necessary if, in particular—
(a)the provision cannot be made under the existing legislation without the risk of serious delay,
(b)it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the provision can be made under the existing legislation, or
(c)the provision might be insufficiently effective if made under the existing legislation.
I think it is arguable that all of these conditions would be met.
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/14/universities-should-give-offers-after-results-day-says-study
Imagine that the final outcome of Brexit was Britain having a new referendum and voting to remain in the EU after all. Would you consider this to be:
A very good outcome 28%
A fairly good outcome 8%
An acceptable compromise 9%
A fairly bad outcome 7%
A very bad outcome 34%
Total good outcome: 36%, Total bad outcome: 41%
Interesting also that it is so polarised, usually you expect the middle options to be the ones people go for,
Mr. kle4, that would be sensible. So it may well not happen.
There are other issues as well. First of all, UCAS isn't especially user friendly and as one of the Heads of Faculty and a Year 13 tutor I spend half my life trying to help bewildered students navigate it. The finance system is even worse (remember, the SLC has a senior manager so dense he doesn't know July is the month before August). So cutting out school support is a recipe for chaos.
There are, however, alternatives. I agree, for a start, that knowing results in advance would be better. It would also ease the time pressure on remarks (I once had a student who lost a place at uni because the marker didn't know the Duke of Suffolk was murdered in 1450, and it took two months to disentangle what had happened). And there is no reason why universities could not start in January.
However, a more practicable approach would be to allow students to take up foundation years at designated universities or sixth form colleges after A-level (which most universities have at the start anyway) and switch at the end of them to a different university if they perform well - in effect cutting the Russell Group (where contrary to popular belief the teaching is often of a shockingly poor standard) out of the first stage of the admissions process. They could hthen be taken on their A-level results and at least one semester of university results.
And because the Russell Group will never allow such a sensible system, it will never happen.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1084861993318793219
https://m.sfgate.com/business/technology/article/Netflix-and-chill-no-more-streaming-is-getting-13510694.php
If they turn it into a spaghetti system all that happens is people use pirate systems. There are already numerous apps that make Netflix catalogue look tiny and everybody now can get fast enough internet.
The reason Spotify is so popular is you basically get everything on one service.
Maths has twenty, and it still isn't enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXOkXDfUvGM
One of the more bizarre features of the new qualifications is in the manic drive to 'add rigour' they seem to have rather lost sight of the fact that a course so rigorous that nobody can do it is of no value whatsoever. It would be better to have a less complicated course that more people could be encouraged to do so we widen the skills base, than a course that even the very ablest struggle with.
Already we've banned anyone who gets less than a 7 from doing Maths A-level, and strongly intimated that Further Maths GCSE will be needed to go beyond AS.
As I said to a maths teacher earlier today, I don't know what we blamed for our mistakes before we had computers. I've had 40% of the cohort who started it drop history already this year. All very bright, all very keen, all very hardworking, all successful at GCSE despite the epic shambles over the mark scheme that saw the average mark for their combination dip to 27%. They just found it too hard.
I wouldn't mind it being hard - I've taught postgrads FFS - but it's not even a good preparation for a university degree.
Something is badly wrong.
Edit - and at a time we as a country badly need more mathematicians in every field, should we really be saying 1 candidate per school should be doing it? Really? Actually?
Although somewhere I do have an example of a German algebra question that involved a plane 'bombing Warsaw, the capital of international Jewry.'
Edit - and I didn't even mention Corbyn's, ummm, mathematical mishaps with his 'fully costed manifesto'...
Is this actually liable to escalate into some kind of crisis or is it just the media hyperventilating? The idea of Salmond and Sturgeon getting into a full-scale catfight with one another seems somewhat improbable, though then again what do I know?
But I think they're just carping at each other.
Entertaining though it would be to see the SNP implode over a sex scandal, I hope it doesn't happen just yet. Nicola should farm him out to the DUP or something.
https://www.rt.com/shows/alex-salmond-show/